Appellant: Prentice Q.C., Solicitor Advocate

Respondent: Lamb Q.C., Renucci

13 May 2010

[1] In this case, the Crown appeal against a sentence imposed following pleas of guilty to murder, in which, having imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, the sentencing judge associated that with a punishment part of 17 years, which was derived from a starting point of 21 years and the application of a discount of 4 years in respect of pleas of guilty, which were accepted by the Crown to have been tendered at the earliest practicable opportunity. Despite what appears in the note of appeal, it was accepted before us that no issue arose in relation to the level of discount in this case. It was recognised that the case of HMA v Boyle & Maddock 2010 SCCR 103 did not have application to this case retrospectively.

[2] The circumstance of these offences are fully set out in the report written for the benefit of this court by the sentencing judge. It is apparent from that that they were a sequel to a domestic situation which had evidently created great distress on the part of the respondent. That situation embraced the break-up of his marriage and the commencement of divorce proceedings by his wife. On the date of the offences, 3 May 2008, the respondent inflicted multiple stab wounds on his daughter Michelle, who was aged 25 at the material time, but was a victim of learning difficulties and a vulnerable person and also upon his son Ryan Thomson, who was aged 7 years at the time. There is no dispute that, in relation to these young people, at the material time, the respondent was in a position of trust. Following upon the infliction of the quickly fatal injuries, the respondent proceeded to inflict injuries with a knife on his own person, in the form of the cutting of his wrists and the infliction of a wound elsewhere. He also ingested an overdose of medication, which had been intended for his now-deceased daughter.

[3] Against this background the Crown submitted that the sentence imposed was, and I quote from the statement of reasons in support of the Crown's appeal, "far too low". It was said that it was "unduly lenient" in the sense explained by Lord Justice General Hope in HMA v Bell 1995 SCCR 244 at page 250. In a well known passage, it was explained there that, for a sentence to be unduly lenient, it must fall outside the range of sentences which a judge at first instance, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably have considered appropriate. In support of the Crown's position, some reliance was placed on Walker v HMA 2002 SCCR 136. That was a case in which multiple murders were caused by the use of a firearm, in association with a robbery motivated by greed. It is clear to us that the circumstances of that case are very far removed from the circumstances of the present one, which can best be described as a domestic tragedy.

[4] In all the circumstances we have not been persuaded that the sentence selected by the sentencing judge was other than within the range of sentences which a judge at first instance, applying his mind to all relevant factors, could reasonably have considered appropriate. We therefore do not conclude that the sentence was unduly lenient and the Crown's appeal is refused.